CAMPUS LIFE: SOUTHERN METHODIST

Published: September 15, 1991

DALLAS—
Southern Methodist University has initiated a thorough assessment of its judicial system after an appellate board of administrators, faculty members and students reversed a lower board's guilty verdict in the campus's first date rape case.

In calling for the review, President A. Kenneth Pye, who in a final appeal recently upheld the not-guilty decision, said the case raised questions about the university handling serious cases, such as acquaintance rape, and comparatively minor rule infractions in the same manner.

But local law enforcement officers say it raises questions about the propriety of the university handling acquaintance rape cases at all. 'Go to School'

"If they intend to substitute their system for ours, what is the most they can do to the offender -- kick him out of school?" said Norman Kinne, Dallas County first assistant district attorney. "If that were done, and I was a rapist, the first thing I would do is go to school."

Mr. Kinne said that he is still investigating the S.M.U. case, and that the university's actions will have no bearing on his own.

S.M.U. officials say the university's mandate differs from that of the criminal justice system and that the campus review process leaves students free to press charges in the courts. "We're not interested in sending someone to jail," Mr. Pye said. "What we're interested in is the protection of our students. It is our concern that when something happens on our campus, the member of the campus must be removed temporarily or permanently."

Mr. Pye asked Jim Caswell, vice president for student affairs, to study the university's judicial procedures. Mr. Caswell said last week that he will appoint a small committee of students and faculty members and that he hopes to have a completed report by Dec. 1.

Mr. Pye has criticized the existing review process as one that gives too much control to the officer presiding over the hearings.

"In complex cases such as acquaintance rape," he said, "we have to be careful to divide the responsibility among the one who receives the complaint, the one who investigates, the one who makes the charges and the one who presents the case. You have to have different perspectives."

But Pat Terrell, the dean of student life and the hearing officer in the rape case, said that "if you spread the responsibility, there might be more trouble. The more people involved the less likelihood you have for confidentiality and the more time the process takes."

Most of the S.M.U. officials interviewed said they believe that the university can, and should deal with acquaintance rape cases. Cathey Soutter, associate director of the S.M.U. Human Resource/Women's Center, said that rape victims might be more willing to talk to a university judicial board than to court officers.

"If it's a matter of not reporting the case or of trying it in a criminal court," Ms. Soutter said, "many women would be more apt to do nothing. The message then would be that the accused is free to do anything." Ruling Overturned

Prompting the university's review of its judicial proceedings is an acquaintance rape hearing that began on Feb. 21. The victim said that a sophomore raped her in his apartment after a fraternity party on Nov. 6, 1990.

The victim said in a recent interview that she had avoided the criminal justice system because she had not wanted want to appear before a court and because she had feared that a court would mete out too harsh a punishment if the rapist were found guilty; she said she wanted him to learn a lesson but not be imprisoned.

The accused was found guilty in April by a level 2 judicial board, which comprises one administrator, three students and a faculty member and is empowered to deal with serious cases on campus. But the ruling was overturned on appeal by the university's highest judicial authority, a level 3 judicial board, which comprises two administrators, two faculty members, three students and two student alternates. The appeals board said there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.

"I'm not sure that the university should handle a case like that now," the victim said in a recent interview. "There are a lot of things in the system that need to be worked out. They tried to treat me fairly, but it didn't work out that way."

The victim and the accused, who was not available for comment, are no longer at S.M.U.

Phillip Bustos, associate dean of students at the University of North Texas in Denton, said U.N.T.'s judicial system has tried eight acquaintance rape cases within the last two years. All resulted in guilty findings and the suspension of the accused.

Arguing that universities are equipped to handle serious matters, Mr. Bustos said, "On our campus we're a lot faster. Our system is not as cumbersome" as the criminal justice system.

"When you have someone living in a residence hall, you need to take immediate action," he said. "When a convicted student leaves the campus, he may still be a danger to the community. But we can't take care of that. We can only protect our own domain. We don't pretend to have a foolproof system."